Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................................1
Objective.................................................................................................................................................................2
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................3
The Local Market...........................................................................................................................................5
Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................................5
Organization of the Results ...............................................................................................................................5
Tourism and the Economy ............................................................................................................................6
The EWM Problem ........................................................................................................................................9
The 2002 Sonar Treatment ..........................................................................................................................11
Financing the Treatment..............................................................................................................................14
Concerns with EWM Management.............................................................................................................17
Conclusions from Overall Review..............................................................................................................19
Direct vs Indirect Linkage – A Comparison ..................................................................................................19
EWM and Your Business ............................................................................................................................20
Business Owners and the Local Economy (Direct & Indirect).................................................................22
Conclusions from the Direct and Indirect Breakdown ..............................................................................24
Values at Risk.......................................................................................................................................................25
Commercial Properties ................................................................................................................................26
Residential Property.....................................................................................................................................26
Public Good..................................................................................................................................................28
Total Loss .....................................................................................................................................................29
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................29
Appendix A...........................................................................................................................................................31
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey .....................................................................................................31
Appendix B...........................................................................................................................................................36
Comments from Questions ..............................................................................................................................36
Comments from Question 5 ........................................................................................................................36
Comments from Question 19 ......................................................................................................................37
Comments from Question 20 ......................................................................................................................38
Comments from Question 21 ......................................................................................................................39
Appendix C...........................................................................................................................................................41
Survey Results..................................................................................................................................................41
Overall Survey Results ...............................................................................................................................41
Direct Survey Results ..................................................................................................................................45
Indirect Survey Results................................................................................................................................48
Works Sited ..........................................................................................................................................................51
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Executive Summary
Houghton Lake, located in the north central part of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, is the
state’s largest inland body of water. At nearly eight miles long and four miles wide, the lake
encompasses over 22,000 acres of open water.
Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM), Myriophyllum spicatum, an exotic invasive aquatic plant,
was first discovered in 1994 and allowed to grow unmanaged until it eventually dominated over
50 percent of the native aquatic plant community of Houghton Lake. The EWM infestation
developed into a major nuisance by 2001, negatively impacting the water quality and shoreline
conditions of the lake. As a result of the EWM infestation, there were negative impacts
throughout the tourism industry and the local economy of the Houghton Lake area.
To address the EWM problem, corrective action was taken in the spring/summer 2002 by
the Houghton Lake Improvement Board to successfully remove EWM from the lake. Their
selected strategy used the Integrated Method for Controlling Aquatic Plants (IMCAP*), which
included a whole-lake, low dose, precision application of the aquatic herbicide Sonar*. An
economic impact and property owner survey followed in October 2003. The results from this
survey reported that a large majority (96 percent) of those responding were satisfied with the
treatment of the lake, and that a majority, facing a similar situation in the future, would take
similar corrective action. A summary of important survey observations follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The local economy of Houghton Lake is dependent on tourism.
Many of the local businesses are strongly dependent on the health of the local economy,
rather than economic forces outside of the area.
Water quality in the lake directly affects the health of the tourism industry and thus the
health of the overall local economy.
As a whole, residents of the Houghton Lake community were discouraged by the EWM
infestation.
Visitors were also discouraged by the lakes condition as a result of the EWM infestation.
A majority of the survey respondents noticed a decline in tourism as a result of the EWM
infestation, between the years 1999 and 2000.
A large majority (96%) of those surveyed were satisfied with the Sonar treatment of the lake
which successfully removed the EWM.
Most of those who responded would support the use of Sonar again if the situation with the
EWM presented itself in the future.
Most of those who responded would encourage others to use Sonar if faced with a similar
situation as Houghton Lake experienced in 1999/00.
The success of the treatment has positively affected the local tourism industry.
The survey also found some concerns regarding the corrective action taken and the future
of the lake. Specifically, respondents voiced a fear that long-term management of the lake would
not continue and that economic losses would be repeated. In addition the survey found that most
respondents believe they received a reasonable return on their investment into the Special
Assessment levied to pay for the corrective measures. The majority of those surveyed also felt the
amount assessed per unit was an affordable price to pay for the results received.
While the full economic impact of the EWM treatment of Houghton Lake is yet to be
completely quantified, it is expected that, in time, many more real and tangible benefits will
become realized.
* Trademark of SePRO Corporation
1
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
OBJECTIVE
It is the purpose of this report to identify and document the effects on the local economy
resulting from the 2002 Sonar* treatment of Houghton Lake. Through personal interviews and
the analysis of an extensively distributed survey (Appendix A), the economic impact resulting
from the successful removal of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Houghton Lake will be examined, both
in terms of personal/communal satisfaction with the treatment and the impact on the local
economy. This report will also compare past and present information on the local economy of the
Houghton Lake area, and describe how the 2002 Sonar treatment affected the economic health of
the lake.
Aquatic Plant Management scientists have long documented the negative impact of
excessive nuisance and exotic plant growth. Invasive plants can have serious and detrimental
consequences to the ecology of the aquatic environment and ultimately may impact the
surrounding community and the local economy connected to the lake (Henderson and Kirk 2002).
There are many challenges, however, in quantifying the values associated with the lake, making
even an extensive survey, such as this, a “snap shot” or an incomplete evaluation.
“There are difficulties in estimating the economic impacts of aquatic weeds (or,
conversely, the benefits of their control) due to the “public-good” nature of aquatic resources and
the resulting fact that few of these impacts or benefits pass through economic markets”1.
Economists have tried to find ways to quantify these impacts and benefits, in order to make more
informed estimations concerning their values. The US Army Corps of Engineers have developed
their own techniques to quantify almost un-quantifiable values such as: How much is a day of
fishing worth to you? 2 And, although they have had success in estimating benefits associated
with specific plant management levels, they admittedly realize their own system is limited in the
ability to fully capture the estimates of economic loss. For this reason, the authors of this report
elected not to follow a similar method for measuring the economic impact of the Houghton Lake
EWM removal project3.
Another method used to quantify impacts related to an aquatic plant infestation is to
calculate “values-at-risk” by identifying losses that can be directly linked to the body of water in
question. Calculating values-at-risk, however, is no easy feat either, and may perpetuate the use
of broad speculation and rolling assumptions. In the following sections we will explore valuesat-risk calculations for Houghton Lake in full detail.
The tools used, albeit imperfect, have proven to be effective in creating a cautiously
consistent, accurate collection of studies concerning the economic impact of invasive aquatic
plants. Using these tools, (i.e., questionnaire, survey, direct interviews, willingness to pay
[contingent value], economic impact assessment, values at risk calculations), in conjunction with
the project methodology, it is the goal of this project to estimate the economic impact from the
corrective treatment to remove EWM from Houghton Lake.
1
Rockwell, William H. Jr. Ph.D. Summary of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds. Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. (10/1/03) www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics.htm (P.1)
2
Henderson, Jim E. and Phil Kirk “’So how much is it worth?’ Economic Impacts of Recreational Fishing Under
Different Aquatic Plan Conditions”. Aquatic Plant Control Research Program Vol-A02-1 (2002) pp.1-8. (p.2)
3
Mongin, Mark S., Personal Interview 9/20/03.
2
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
METHODOLOGY
An extensive 27-question survey supplemented with personal interviews of area residents
were two of the primary methods used to gather information for this report. In addition, public
records with relevant economic indicator data were utilized to further investigate, better quantify
and validate identified changes in the local economy. The preparation for the survey was a
collaborative work with input from: Jim Henderson (USACE), Dick Pastula (HLIB), Jim Deamud
(HLIB), Eric Bacon (Michigan DEQ), and Mark Mongin (SePRO). The survey, which utilized
qualitative and quantitative questions, was mailed to more than 700 property owners who live
around the lake and who all paid fees into the lake clean up fund. Each of the lakeshore property
owners surveyed paid a Special Assessment Fee assigned specifically to fund the Eurasian
Watermilfoil removal effort. The purpose of the survey was to collect general information
regarding the local economy from the people who are most immediately affected by changes in
the condition of the lake. The survey seeks to gain their perspective regarding the 2002
restoration treatment performed by the aquatic plant managers under the guidance of SePRO
Corporation.
The survey response exceeded expectations, with a return of over 20 percent. The
response data from this survey was utilized to create much of the analysis and conclusions in this
report. Appendix B and C contain detailed information regarding specific responses and
comments to questions as well as survey results.
The second primary method of information collection used in this study was personal
interviews. These interviews, which took place during the week of September 22-26, 2003 in the
Houghton Lake area, have been used to provide a historical perspective on the region’s economy
and complement, or contest, the information collected through the written survey. The interviews
were held with individuals in the lake community who had a vested interest in the health of the
lake, and those who represented a unique sector of the local economy – business owners. Based
upon these criteria, interviews were conducted throughout the week with various members of the
business community. It is recognized, however, that this process was greatly influenced by time
and availability of the business owners, so the information obtained through individual interviews
will not be used in conjunction with the survey responses to stand on its own, but rather to
strengthen, or question, the data received through the survey. Also any hard data received from
these interviewees will be used, in aggregate to help quantify “values-at-risk”, and help us in
drawing the conclusions of this report.3
INTRODUCTION
Houghton Lake, located in the north central part of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, is the
state’s largest inland body of water. At nearly eight miles long and four miles wide, the lake
encompasses over 22,000 acres of open water. Its size, accessibility, and its proximity to large
metropolitan areas in Michigan have made it an ideal recreational destination.
What was at one time a quaint lakeside community with weekend visitors in the summer,
has turned into a multi-million dollar recreational destination, grossing over $13 million in motel
revenue between 1996-2001.4 Although a large portion of the area surrounding the lake,
3
Rockwell, William H. Jr. Ph.D. Summary of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds. Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. (10/1/03) <www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics.htm>
4
Shea, Laura and Bob. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
3
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
comprised of four townships (Roscommon, Denton, Lake, and Markey), remains modest in
appearance, life around the lake has changed.
Many people who spent their childhood summers in Houghton Lake have converted their
once summertime cabins into larger, winterized retirement homes. Similarly, many of the “mom
and pop” resorts, boasting individual cabins and fire pits are being sold off, and turned into
modern condominiums to accommodate the growing desire of the baby boomer generation to
retire on the lake. All of this change has had a marked difference on the demographics of the
area, but has not altered the lake’s primary attraction as a recreational destination.
Houghton Lake’s appeal as a tourist destination has undoubtedly contributed the most to
the growth of the economy in the area. Throughout the 1990s, the Houghton Lake economy
prospered. Between the changing demographics of the area and the strong tourism base which
came to enjoy the benefits of the lake, the townships surrounding the lake were experiencing
unprecedented prosperity. In fact, the community and local economy was growing rapidly
enough to attract both K-mart and Wal-Mart to the area during this time of expansion. This
heyday of economic growth and prosperity, however, was soon to be called into check, and the
townships that had invested their well being in the lake were called to perform some maintenance
on the economic engine.
In 1994/1995, Donald Bonnette, a graduate student from Central Michigan University
was studying the wild rice (Zizania aquatica L.) on Houghton Lake when he discovered what he
knew to be an impending problem; he had discovered the first evidence of Eurasian Watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum L.). Knowing that Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) was an aggressive
exotic species, and that it could create catastrophic change to the lake’s ecology, Bonnette
sounded an alarm. In an effort to warn the community of the looming problem, Bonnette met
with the County Board of Commissioners to explain what he had found, and the problems that
could arise from its presence. Much to the future dismay of the community, the County Board of
Commissioners, at that time, did not act aggressively enough on Bonnette’s warning.
As a result of the failure to act on Bonnette’s early warning, the townships surrounding
the lake continued to enjoy economic prosperity unconcerned by the growing threat hidden below
the surface. In fact, it wasn’t until 1999 that the problem facing Houghton Lake again became
publicly recognized. While researching for an application of Copper Sulfate to combat
“swimmers itch”, Doug Pullman, Ph.D., under contract with the Township of Denton, discovered
higher, more widespread populations of EWM and again sounded an alarm. This time, however,
people began to listen.5 Pullman’s report of the problematic EWM populations spurred the
establishment of a local committee that studied the problem in 99/00 and called for the
establishment of the Houghton Lake Improvement Board.6 Thereafter, the project had
momentum, and action to combat the EWM in Houghton Lake was soon underway.
By the summer of 2001, Houghton Lake, and the people who depend on it, were in the
thick of a problem which showed no signs of letting up. At this time, nearly 50 % of the lake had
been infested with EWM, and an estimated 4,000 acres were completely topped-out.7 The rapidly
growing infestations led to a myriad of problems throughout the lake and its surrounding
communities. These problems included lake accessibility, aesthetics, and the overall health and
viability of the local economy that depends on the marketability of the lake and its shoreline
property.
5
Faino, Joe. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
Pastula, Dick. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
7
ReMetrix LLC. Multiyear Change Analysis for Eurasian Watermilfoil, Including 2002 Satellite and Field Data.
Carmel, IN: 2003. (p.5), & Smith, Craig S., Mark Mongin and Mark A. Heilman. “Houghton Lake, MI—Restoring the
Aquatic Vegetation.” LakeLine Vol. 23 No. 3 (Fall 2003): 30-33.
6
4
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
No longer willing to endure the problems the invasive aquatic plants were causing, and
the economic detriment the exotic plant infestation was having on the community, the Houghton
Lake Improvement Board (HLIB) mobilized. Determined not to suffer another season with the
EWM, or wait to see if the grim scientific prophecies of complete lake coverage would come true,
the HLIB moved into action. The board reviewed treatment methodologies, commissioned a lake
management plan, solicited contractor bids, held public forums, and formed a tax district by
which to pay for the implementation of an environmental restoration plan.
THE LOCAL MARKET
The economy of the Houghton Lake area predominately caters to the tourism industry the
lake attracts. Although there is a rapidly expanding population of year-round residents, the
combined population of Roscommon, Denton, Lake, and Markey townships is just above 11,000.
And the population increases three-fold during the summer months and up to six-fold during the
annual Tip-Up Town Festival.8 To accommodate tourists, there are a variety of lodging
opportunities including: modern hotel chains, family-owned resorts, and cabin rentals. In
addition, there are many restaurants, bars, and shops to entertain guests visiting the lake. There
are also a variety of ways for a visitor to enjoy the lake, from fishing, swimming and boating, to
relaxing on the beach with a nice sunset on the beautiful clear calm water.
SURVEY RESULTS
In preparing a survey to explore the economic impacts of the 2002 Sonar* restoration
treatment, it was necessary to ask a variety of questions in an effort to determine the perceptions
of the local business community concerning the Sonar treatment. These questions were ordered
randomly within the survey to break up any rhythmic pattern of answering, but have been regrouped by common themes below, in an order specific to this report.
The following section will explore responses of all returned surveys. However, answers
from all of the survey questions will not be interpreted. Responses from specific questions will
be examined that have to do with overall perceptions of the EWM problem and the corresponding
treatment. Decisions on management of natural resources requires understanding of the
relationship between the natural resources—in this case the water and land resources of Houghton
Lake—and the human uses and benefits of the lake. This initial section of the survey analysis
examines perceptions of the relationships of aquatic plant management, water quality, tourism,
and business or economic well being. The following section will be used to establish a set of
conclusions that will be helpful in determining “values-at-risk” and will help in setting the stage
for the final analysis of this report. After looking at the overall response from the survey, the
analysis has been broken down into smaller sections, where each sub-section pertains specifically
to one aspect of the lake and its treatment. Conclusions drawn in this “Overall Results” section
will set the tone for the following sub-sections, and will provide great insight into the feelings of
the business community regarding the effects of the 2002 Sonar treatment.
ORGANIZATION OF THE RESULTS
To clarify the survey results, a variety of approaches have been taken in interpreting the
data collected. In the following sections, answers from specific survey questions will be isolated
and looked at to find underlying commonality. Along with the statistical data, stories and
anecdotes from the interviews have been incorporated to support the information gathered from
8
ReMetrix LLC. Houghton Lake Management Feasibility Study: Final Report. Carmel, IN: 2002. (p.10)
5
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
the survey. At the beginning of each section, reasons for commonality grouping will be
discussed.
TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY
The following section will examine the survey responses, results of the survey and the overall
response in order to determine a relationship between the lake, tourism, and the local economy.
The discussions to come are carried forward to establish a set of relationships from which many
conclusions of this report will stem.
The first survey question helped establish a relationship between tourism and the local
economy. “Do you feel that the local economy is dependent on tourism?” This question was
asked of interviewees in the Houghton Lake area and elicited a variety of responses. However,
Mike Ryan of Harvey’s Marine may have captured this relationship best by stating: “To all of
those people who don’t feel that they are connected to the lake, and wanted to leave it as it was,
they don’t understand that, in business, if there is no profit, there is no business. And, with no
tourists there would be no profit, therefore, all of the businesses would leave.” 9 Although this
comment could be construed as overly presumptuous, it seems as though most of the business
community was in agreement with Ryan. When asked in question # 6: “Do you feel that the local
economy is dependant on tourism? - 97 percent responded “yes” (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Response to Question # 6
yes
no
not sure
The conclusion that can be made from the response above establishes that the local economy
is, or is at least perceived to be intimately connected to tourism. For that reason, it is practical to
ask in question # 8: “How important is the local economy to the health of your business?”
This question, and the perceptions it elicits, is an important piece of the economic puzzle. If it is
established that a large percentage of the businesses in the Houghton Lake area are dependent on
the local economy, it can be concluded that the health of the local economy is dependent on the
health of the local tourism industry. If the local economy is not important to the health of local
businesses, then the conclusion would, in contrast, be that changes in tourism do not affect the
health of local businesses.
9
Ryan, Mike. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
6
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
The response to the aforementioned question was strong with over 90 % of respondents
answering “important” or higher, claiming that their businesses are dependent on the local
economy (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Response to Question # 8
100.00%
66.37%
23.89%
9.73%
0.00%
very important
important
not important
Although the above argument may have seemed redundant, seemingly addressing the same
question from a different angle, it was carried out to establish two critical points: First, the local
economy is dependant on tourism. Secondly, most businesses in the area depend on the health of
local economy. If the Houghton Lake area was also shared by other industries, such as
manufacturing, it may have been that many of the industries would be more affected by economic
situations outside the area. If this were the case the local economy would have still been reported
as dependent on tourism, but the implications of this would not necessarily affect the livelihood
of most people in the area. As it is, not only is the economy dependent on tourism, but so are the
local people, their livelihood, and their way of life. As Mike Ryan, owner of Harvey’s Marina
stated: “I’m not only responsible for my business, but also for the 12 families my business
provides for. If they don’t have jobs, and money to go spend… other businesses will suffer…it’s
a slippery slope.”10
Now that it has been established that the local economy and the businesses it supports are
largely dependent on tourism it is only reasonable to ask: What is the tourism dependent on?
This question, however, was not asked in the survey because it has long been understood that “the
lake is what draws people up here”.11
For that reason the next question we will discuss is #18 on the survey: “Do you feel that the
water quality of the lake directly affects tourism?” The response to this question will help us
finish a critical part of the interconnected economic cycle on which the Houghton Lake
community depends. If one can assume that the water quality of the lake affects tourism, then it
would be a reasonable conclusion, in light of what has been established above, that water quality
not only affects tourism but has the potential for significant economic impact throughout the local
economy. Although this report would not have been approached had this assumption not already
been made, it is once again important to see how those who are most connected to the lake and its
economy see the situation.
10
11
Ryan, Mike. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
Faino, Joe and Ron Eno. Personal interview. 9/23/03
7
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
For a number of local business owners, the reality of the interconnectedness of water
quality and the tourism industry became all too real in the few years leading up to the treatment.
Lyman Foster of Lyman’s on the Lake, a local bait shop, claimed that he was even contemplating
leaving the lake because the lake conditions had gotten so bad, stating, “if we don’t get something
going here in a year or two, I gotta go…you can’t make a living selling bobbers and worms”.12
The problems from the invasive aquatic plants even effected businesses not traditionally
considered connected to the lake. Joe Faino, an appraiser at Roscommon County’s Equalization
Department, recalls the owner of 123 Lake St., a restaurant on the waterfront, complaining at a
town meeting about the stench of the weeds in front of his restaurant, saying that the smell of the
decaying weeds was so bad that it was driving away his customers.13 These two anecdotal
accounts support the conclusion that the water quality of the lake affected those businesses
perceived as independent from the lake. However, the response to survey question eighteen was
again a resounding “yes”, with almost 95 percent of participants claiming that the water quality of
the lake directly affects local tourism (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Response to Question # 18
3%
3%
yes
no
not sure
94%
In the above discussions we have established direct connections between the local
economy and the lake. Although many of these connections were assumed prior to the study, or
even could have been assumed from the introduction to this report, the support of these
assumptions was solidified by the one-sided survey responses. This is an important fact to note
because many of the conclusions in this report are grounded in the idea that without tourism,
much of the economic community would not exist.
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
•
12
13
The local economy of Houghton Lake is dependent on tourism to the area.
Many of the local businesses are strongly dependent on the health of the
local economy, rather than economic forces outside of the area.
Water quality in the lake directly affects the health of the tourism industry
and thus the health of the overall local economy.
Foster, Lyman. Personal interview. 9/23/03
Faino, Joe and Ron Eno. Personal interview. 9/23/03
8
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
THE EWM PROBLEM
In the following section we will be looking at overall perceptions of Houghton Lake prior to
the 2002 treatment that successfully removed the EWM. This section will be used to explore the
community’s awareness of the EWM problem, and its implications on the tourism industry.
As was discussed previously, the EWM problem facing the lake was a matter of great
concern to the community. The EWM had rendered much of the lake useless, and had altered the
way people interacted with the lake. No longer could you just go out on your boat and enjoy the
lake, “you had to be on constant look out for the weed beds…you couldn’t even get from point A
to point B anymore”.14 This was a problem that not only affected those who lived on the lake, but
also those visitors who came to boat on or otherwise enjoy the lake.
Because of the widespread concern for the lake and the tourism industry that depends on the
lake, most everyone in the community was aware of the threat posed by the invasion of EWM and
was therefore in a position to answer questions regarding the perceived impact of the exotic
aquatic species invasion. The first of such questions is #9 of the survey which reads: “As a
whole, was the attitude of the Houghton Lake community affected by the Eurasian
Watermilfoil?” The response to this question was overwhelmingly one-sided with 92% of
respondents answering, “Yes…people were becoming discouraged with the milfoil problem”
(Figure 4). This response was not surprising considering the experience of many of the local
residents and business owners who dealt directly with the Eurasian Watermilfoil infestation. In
fact, Lyman Foster sold the boat rental portion of his business when the milfoil began to take over
the lake. He blames the “weeds” for burning up at least “a motor a year” on his rental boats, and
said “it was just too expensive to keep replacing them.” Others claimed the exotic plant growth
was so bad that they swore they could “walk across the top of the lake without getting wet.”
Many residents who lived along the canals could not even launch their boats from their docks
because the boat would sit on top of the thick weed mat, never fully submerging. In fact, the
problem got bad enough that The Detroit Free Press ran articles virtually telling people to find a
new place to go because Houghton Lake was not a place for the resorting community.15
Figure 4
Response to Question # 9
6%
2%
yes…people were
becoming
discouraged with
the milfoil problem
no…the milfoil di
not affect the
communities
attitude
not sure
92%
14
15
Brian Tribelhorn. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
Joe Faino
9
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
The next question explored this section, #13, is similar to question #9 asked above, yet
asks respondents to answer on behalf of their observations of visitors. “During the infestation
did you notice if visitors were unhappy with the lake’s condition?” Although it is understood
that not all of the respondents have an equal opportunity to interact with tourists, the question was
asked with the assumption that in such a small community many people would have views on the
subject. As suspected, more than 75% of respondents answered this question, and 88% of them
said, “yes…visitors were discouraged” with the condition of the lake (Figure 5). In fact, the
conditions on the lake were so bad, says Mike Rankin of the Houghton Lake Chamber of
Commerce, that he was getting calls daily from visitors upset with the state of the lake. Many
went as far as saying they were never coming back to Houghton Lake ever again.16
Figure 5
Response to Question # 13
yes…visitors were
discouraged
8% 4%
no…visitors were
not affected by the
milfoil
88%
not sure
Question #12 closely relates to the last, and again asks respondents to offer their perceptions
of effects on tourism. “Did you notice a decline in tourism between the years of 1999-2000
while the watermilfoil began to infest the lake?” Again, it is certain that not everyone who
responded to the survey is in a position to say whether or not there was a decline in tourism, yet it
is important to explore the community’s perceptions of the situation. The response to this
question was undoubtedly mixed with only fifty seven 57% of respondents answering “yes”. Of
the remaining 44%, seventeen percent of respondents said “no” -- tourism had not declined
during these years”, 26% responded that they were “not sure” if tourism had declined in these
years (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Response to Question # 12
26%
57%
yes
no
not sure
17%
16
Rankin, Mike. Personal Interview. 9/24/03.
10
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Although results from this question were mixed, with over 50% of the respondents answering
“yes”, there may have been a discernable difference in tourism over these few years. Also,
because 26% said they were “not sure”, it can be generalized that either they simply were not
sure, or they felt that they were not in a position to answer this question fairly.
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
•
As a whole, the Houghton Lake community was discouraged by the EWM.
Visitors were discouraged by the lake’s condition as a result of the EWM
infestation.
A majority of the survey respondents witnessed a decline in tourism as a
result of the EWM between the years 1999 and 2000.
THE 2002 SONAR TREATMENT
The survey results established a definite connection between the lake, the local economy, and
the tourism industry. The changes in lake conditions resulted in a discernable difference in
visitation and in perceptions of concern and discouragement on the part of the lake community
and visitors. Also, research supports that the community and its visitors were discouraged with
the condition of the lake, enough so to cause a noticeable difference in visitation. Due to this
concern, SePRO Corporation was contracted in 2001 to help the community manage the EWM
situation, and to set forth a management plan for the future control of EWM in the lake. SePRO’s
Sonar treatment followed in the summer of 2002, and successfully reduced EWM by 91% from
10,800 acres to less than 1,000 acres. In fact, EWM can now only be found in trace amounts
within the lake.17 Therefore, the next step in analyzing the overall survey data is to look at the
community’s satisfaction with the treatment.
“Please rate your satisfaction with the treatment of the Eurasian Watermilfoil in
Houghton Lake.” This first question in the survey, though quite obvious, was asked to
determine the satisfaction of the community and to get a read on their perceptions on the success
of the EWM removal program. This is an important question to ask, because the respondents
represent a large portion of the funding provided for the treatment, and therefore had a vested
interest in the success of the program.
17
Smith, Craig S., Mark Mongin and Mark A. Heilman. “Houghton Lake, MI—Restoring the Aquatic Vegetation.”
LakeLine Vol. 23 No. 3 (Fall 2003): 30-33.
11
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Throughout the interview process, people surveyed in the Houghton Lake community were
posed this same question and the majority were satisfied, even surprised, by the dramatic results
of the treatment. Dick Pastula (HLIB) stated, “I think I speak for 99 percent of the community
when I say that I am extremely happy with the results of the treatment.”18 Almost 96% of the
total respondents rated their satisfaction at “very satisfied” or “satisfied” (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Response to Question # 1
100.00%
64.35%
31.30%
2.61%
1.74%
dissatisfied
very
dissatisfied
0.00%
very
satisfied
satisfied
In order to explore further the business community’s satisfaction with the Sonar
treatment, business owners were asked two hypothetical questions. The first question was # 10 in
the survey and reads as follows, “Imagine it is the year 2006, and the Eurasian Watermilfoil
has rendered nearly 50% of the lake un-usable. Would you like the lake to be treated with
Sonar, as was done, or would you find an alternative method of treatment?” The response to
this question was mixed, yet according to the data over two-thirds of those surveyed would treat
the lake again with Sonar (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Response to Question # 10
no…Sonar failed
to do what it
promised and I
would not do it
23%
7%
70%
18
yes…Sonar
worked great and
I would do it
again
not sure
Pastula, Dick. Personal Interview. 9/25/03. *Trademark of SePRO Corporation
12
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
The second question intended to gauge the community’s satisfaction is question #22 in
the survey, “If you were talking to a business owner on a different lake that was suffering
the same fate as Houghton Lake in 2000 would you…?” The possible responses for this
question were: A. “Encourage a Sonar treatment based upon the success in Houghton Lake,” B.
“Discourage a Sonar treatment because of any adverse effects it has had on the lake”, or C. “Not
sure”. Once again, those surveyed were in favor of the Sonar treatment with 83% answering “A”,
encouraging a Sonar treatment based upon their experience (Figure 9).
Figure 9
Response to Question # 22
2%
15%
Encourage a Sonar
treatment based
upon the success on
Houghton Lake
Discourage a Sonar
treatment because
of adverse effects it
has had on the lake.
83%
Not sure
It can reasonably be concluded from the above information that the business community
is overwhelmingly satisfied with the treatment of the lake. The survey report has only addressed
half of the lake users, albeit a large and possibly more important half. It is also important to
investigate the thoughts and feelings of the tourists. As previously noted, the community at large
was facing a possibly disastrous situation with the EWM infestation in the lake. The problem had
gotten bad enough to cause concern within the community and cause a downturn in tourism. The
tourist community, however, can not be asked directly about their satisfaction with the treatment
of the lake, and therefore can only really be gauged by rates of visitation. To touch upon this
matter those surveyed were asked, “Did you notice resurgence in tourism in 2002-2003.” This
question elicited one of the most mixed results in the overall analysis of the survey, with only 44
percent saying yes there was resurgence in tourism after the treatment (Figure 10).
Figure 10
Response to Question # 12a
26%
44%
yes
no
not sure
30%
13
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
However, in looking at the response to this question it is important to keep in mind a
number of factors. First, it is important to note that this study is taking place only a year after the
EWM removal, and therefore the effects on recovery of the local tourism industry are still in
progress. Secondly, the treatment of the lake was done swiftly, after only two really bad years of
heavy milfoil infestation, so the local tourism industry was really just beginning to see what
might have been a disastrous fallout in tourist numbers. Finally, and probably more importantly,
the treatment itself was done less than a year after 9/11/01, when the nation as a whole had
witnessed a drastic downturn in tourism and the economy. These three factors have undoubtedly
had a significant impact on the local tourism industry of Houghton Lake and on the local
perception of the industry.
The improved lake conditions have also been noticed by those who have visited the lake
since the treatment was accomplished. Laura Shea of Shea’s Lodge commented, “We’ve got
some fisherman that are coming back in the fall, this will be the third time they are here this
season, where normally they come just once…so we’re getting people coming back 2 and 3 and 4
times to fish in a year.”19 And Lyman Foster, owner of Lyman’s Bait & Tackle, said of the
situation, “Considering we went from a bad couple of years when the economy was good…to a
good couple of years when the economy was bad” the treatment has been a success and “people
that said, two years ago, that they would never come back, were back”.20
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
•
•
A large majority (96%) of those surveyed are satisfied with the Sonar
treatment of the lake.
Most of those who responded would use Sonar again if the situation with
the EWM presented itself in the future.
Most of those who responded would encourage others to use Sonar if they
were faced with a similar situation as Houghton Lake in 1999/00.
The success of the treatment has positively affected the local tourism
industry.
FINANCING THE TREATMENT
Although the overall satisfaction with the treatment appears to be extraordinarily positive,
the above discussion did not include one of the more controversial aspects of the 2002 Sonar
treatment. As was mentioned in the introduction, a Special Assessment District was formed to
raise the funds necessary to pay for the EWM management. The goal of this assessment district
was to raise $5 million over a period of five years in order to ensure capital for a thorough and
complete management approach to the EWM situation they were faced with. Once an assessment
district was established in accordance with the Michigan state law, those who were located within
the district were charged a Special Assessment Fee based upon specific criteria. Essentially those
located on, or close to, the lake are charged $200.00/year for five years and those located off the
lake are charged $100.00/year. However, because of state law the “special assessment must
reflect the relative benefits received by the property owners”.21 Therefore only those within a
determined proximity to the lake are being charged, while others that live outside the district pay
nothing. This situation created controversy, due to inequity of assessment fees. Many of those
who felt they were being overcharged could see no reason why the funding was not spread more
equally throughout the community. However, as was stated above, Michigan state law dictated
19
Shea, Laura and Bob. Personal Interview. 9/25/03.
Foster, Lyman. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
21
What’s Up in Houghton Lake?. Houghton Lake Improvement Board. 10/1/03
<http://www.roscommoncounty.net/milfoil%20handout.htm>
20
14
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
the circumstances under which the Special Assessment had to be constructed, and any other
approach would have taken far longer, creating further delay in treatment and greater impacts on
tourism, something most everyone wanted to avoid.22
To determine how satisfied the local business community was with their investment in
the lake restoration project, the survey included a few questions regarding the Special
Assessment. The first of these questions is question #7 reading, “In your opinion, is the Special
Assessment fee you pay annually a reasonable price to pay for the maintenance of
Houghton Lake?” The response was fairly mixed, yet the majority answered positively with
66% of respondents answering “yes”, stating that they felt the Special Assessment fee is a
reasonable price to pay for the maintenance of the lake (Figure 11).
Figure 11
Response to Question # 7
18%
yes
no
16%
66%
not sure
The next question regarding the Special Assessment asked respondents to “Rate the
return on your investment of the Special Assessment Fee for the cleanup of Houghton
Lake.” To evaluate return on investment, respondents were asked to rate the return from one to
ten, where one was no return, and ten was a high return. To analyze the response from this
question, researchers grouped the response data into two categories -- those who answered with
five or below, and those who answered six and above. The basis for segmenting the data in this
manner is based upon an assumption that those who answered five or below are unhappy with the
return they have received from the Special Assessment Fee, while those who answered six and
above feel that they have had a reasonable, or greater, return on their investment. As shown in
Figure 13, 66% of the respondents answered with a score of six or better, while only 34%
answered with a response of five or below.
Figure 12
Figure 13
Response to Question # 23
Distribution of Responses to Question #
23
32
40
20
17
12
3
2
4
2
3
4
10
9
14
Five or below
9
66%
0
1
22
34%
5
6
7
8
9
Six or above
10
Joe Faino, and Roland Eno. Personal Interview. 9/23/03.
15
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
From the above analysis it can be determined that a strong majority of those who were
assessed the fee to help finance the lake’s treatment are content with the cost incurred and are
happy with the return they have received on their investment. This is not to imply, however, that
everyone is satisfied. Figure 12 above demonstrates that 12 people, of the 112 answering this
question, feel that they have had no return on their investment. For example, Ed Korbinski, local
motel and bait shop owner, is paying the assessment on five lots because of a technicality within
the construct of the Special Assessment that charges un-adjoined lots separately, while larger
businesses such as Wal-Mart only pay one fee because their lots are adjoined.23 From an outside
observers point of view, it is conceivable that someone such as Ed Korbinski could be upset, but
as Mike Ryan stated, “they never tried to say it was going to be fair (the Special Assessment
Fee)…people on the lake had to pay the most because they have the most to lose”.24 Aside from
a few exceptions, such as those previously noted the vast majority of Houghton Lake property
owners reported that they were satisfied with the results received from the money they are
investing.
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
23
24
A majority of those who pay the Special Assessment Fee feel that it is a
reasonable price to pay for the maintenance of the lake.
Most respondents feel that they have received a reasonable return on their
investment into the Special Assessment.
Korbinski, Linda and Ed. Personal Interview. 9/24/03
Ryan, Mike. Personal interview. 9/23/03
16
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
CONCERNS WITH EWM MANAGEMENT
Another aspect of the treatment the survey explores is the community’s concern for the
future management of EWM. To examine these concerns, those surveyed were asked a number of
questions specifically related to future management and adverse future effects of the lake’s
management.
Question # 19 addresses possible concerns with the EWM management approach by
asking, “Do you have any concerns regarding the 2002 treatment of the lake with Sonar?”
Of those who responded, 62% answered “no,” stating they were not concerned with the treatment
the lake received in the summer of 2002 (Figure 14).
Figure 14
Response to Question # 19
16%
22%
yes
no
not sure
62%
The second question that investigated concerns about the lake was # 20. This question
asks, “Do you have any concerns about the future management of the Eurasian
Watermilfoil in Houghton Lake?” Nearly 50% of the respondents had concerns regarding the
future management of the lake (Figure 15). However, as their comments reveal, their concerns
are not with the future EWM management practices, but rather that the EWM problem will return
if proper steps are not taken to ensure management continues.
Figure 15
Response to Question # 20
16%
yes
49%
35%
no
not sure
17
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
The final question in this series dealing with possible adverse effects, and concerns for
the lake asks, “Have you witnessed any adverse effects of the 2002 Sonar treatment?” This
question, #21, is possibly the most important of the three questions, because it once again gauges
the community’s satisfaction with the treatment of the lake. If the community members were
unsatisfied with the condition of the lake it could be assumed that they would be dissatisfied with
the overall treatment. However, this is not the case, as 73% of those surveyed responded that
they have not witnessed any adverse effects as a result of the Sonar treatment (Figure 16).
Figure 16
Response to Question # 21
18%
9%
yes
no
not sure
73%
Although the above section is brief it has been included in the overall analysis to
determine how the community evaluated the 2002 Sonar treatment, its effect on the lake, and to
gather thoughts on the future management of the lake. As the survey, located in Appendix A,
exhibits, each of these three questions provided an opportunity for respondents to include
additional comments on each question. All of these comments have been included in the report
and can be found in Appendix B.
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
•
Only a small percentage (22%) of the community surveyed has concerns
about the 2002 Sonar treatment.
Almost half of those who responded to the survey have concerns regarding
the future management of the EWM. However, the majority of comments
about the future management were concerns that management will not
continue and the EWM will return.
Very few respondents (9%) perceive any adverse effects to the lake as a
result of the Sonar treatment.
18
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
CONCLUSIONS FROM OVERALL REVIEW
From the analysis we have taken of the data thus far, it seems quite apparent that the 2002
Sonar treatment was perceived to have a positive effect on the Houghton Lake community. As
was concluded above, the local economy and the livelihood of those in the area is very dependent
on the lake and the tourism the lake attracts. It has also been established that water quality in the
lake directly affects the tourism industry and thus the local economy. Furthermore, it has been
concluded that the Houghton Lake community, and its visitors, were discouraged by the lake’s
condition as a result of the EWM infestation, resulting in a downturn in tourism. It has also been
determined that an overwhelming majority of the community is satisfied with the 2002 Sonar
treatment, and has witnessed a resurgence in tourism to the area. It has also been determined that
a majority of those who responded to the survey are satisfied with the cost of the Special
Assessment fee they paid to clean up the lake and further feel that the investment made had a
return equal to -- or exceeding -- the fee itself. Finally, it has been concluded that most of the
people surveyed have little concern about the 2002 treatment and have witnessed no adverse
effects to the lake as a result of the Sonar application.
DIRECT VS INDIRECT LINKAGE – A COMPARISON
This section will once again present specific survey questions and corresponding
answers; however, it will also reveal the role of the respondent being questioned. Rather than
treating all businesses the same, and assuming an identical analogous dependence on the lake, the
local economy survey response data will be split into two subsections – those that are directly
linked to the lake - marinas boat rentals, and equipment sales - and those that are indirectly
linked to the lake - restaurants, bars, professional services (see Figure 17). This distinction has
been made so the commonalities can be shown within these two sects of the economy and a
discussion can be presented based on the differences and similarities between the two. Also,
specific industries within these distinctions have been isolated to allow comparison between
certain industries. The following section will concentrate on questions from the survey that have
not been addressed thus far, but will also reference some of the questions we have already
discussed if significant difference presents itself.
Figure 17
Direct
Indirect
hotels
motels
property rentals
marinas
boat sales
boat rentals
bait-shops
restaurants
bars
shops
real estate agencies
insurance agencies
car washes
dentists
attorneys
construction companies
investment companies
travel agents
laundromats
carpenters
banks
19
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Businesses such as hotels, motels, property rentals, marinas, boat sales, boat rentals, and
bait shops have been separated into the direct category and are believed to be directly linked to
the lake, and directly impacted by the EWM infestation. Businesses in the indirect category
include all other industries whose owners responded to the survey including: restaurants, bars,
shops, real estate agencies, insurance agencies, entertainment facilities and all other
miscellaneous responses. For these indirect businesses, the lake is not required for their business,
but their business activity is affected when lake use drops.
EWM AND YOUR BUSINESS
As discussed previously, the survey sent to businesses in the Houghton Lake area
contained many questions that focused on particular industries, specifically the hotel or lodging
industry. These questions were posed intentionally to draw out answers from certain key
industries, specifically those that would be most effected by slight changes in tourism. However,
questions such as these can also be used to expose the difference between various areas of the
economy. For example, a marina, which has an intimate link to a lake, is more likely to
experience a downturn in revenue as a result of an aquatic plant infestation than an insurance
agency located nearby. In fact, without looking at the survey data, the difference between these
two industries can be easily exemplified by analyzing the response from two interviewees, one
who runs an insurance agency, and another who owns a marina. When asked: “Do you feel that
the 2002 Sonar treatment has effected your business?”, Elizabeth Fortino, of State Farm
Insurance, said that she was unsure whether or not she, or her business, had been affected by the
treatment.25 Conversely, Mike Ryan of Harvey’s Marina commented that: “If it (the treatment)
hadn’t been done I would have been out of business in two years.”26 The reactions of these two
respondents confirm how differently individuals in particular industries view the effect of the
EWM problem, and therefore may have different opinions concerning the actions taken.
Question # 3 addresses this subject directly and asks, “What effect did the presence of
the Eurasian Watermilfoil have on your business?” As illustrated in Figures 18 & 19 the
response to this question is undoubtedly different between the direct and indirect sectors of the
economy. Over two-thirds of the direct respondents claim that the EWM had a negative impact
on their businesses. In comparison only a third of the indirect respondents associate the EWM
problem with having negative effects on their businesses. Those who were categorized as
indirect seem uncertain if they were affected at all, with over half the respondents answering “not
sure”. The difference between industries directly and indirectly linked to the lake is one that is
real and tangible. Had there been no difference between these two distinct groupings, further
exploration of this relationship would not have been necessary. However, as shown above, there
is a difference between those industries that are directly linked to the lake compared to those that
are indirectly linked to the lake.
Figure 19
Figure 18
Indirect Response to Question # 3
Direct Response to Question # 3
11%
14%
19%
positive
positive
negative
25
26
Fortino, Elizabeth. Personal interview. 9/24/03not sure
70%
Ryan, Mike. Personal interview. 9/23/03
negative
53%
33%
not sure
20
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Those who were surveyed were also asked, “Did your business experience a change in
revenue as a direct or indirect result of the Eurasian Watermilfoil?” A difference between
the direct and indirect responses is evident. As shown below (Figures 20 & 21), 48% of direct
respondents experienced a downturn in revenue that they attribute to the excessive EWM
infestation of the lake. Conversely, only 14% of the indirect respondents witnessed a downturn
in business that they could attribute to the presence of EWM. Another marked difference
between the direct and indirect responses to this question is the percentage of those who
answered either “revenue stayed the same” or “not sure”. Of the direct respondents, 44%
answered “revenue stayed the same” or “not sure”, while 70% of the indirect answered with
either of these two responses.
Figure 20
Figure 21
Direct Response to Question # 4
Indirect Response to Question # 4
revenue went
down
18%
revenue went up
revenue went
down
16%
32%
revenue stayed the
same
26%
8%
revenue went up
14%
48%
not sure
revenue stayed the
same
38%
not sure
It is reasonable to conclude there is a noticeable difference between the direct and
indirect businesses. It is particularly important to acknowledge the varying relationships these
industry groups have with the lake. Because the intolerable conditions in Houghton Lake did not
persist very long (one to two years), it is possible that indirect businesses may not have been
realizing the impact it was having.
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
•
70% of direct businesses feel they were negatively impacted as a result of the
EWM, while only 33% of indirect businesses feel they were negatively
affected by the infestation.
50% of direct businesses recorded a reduction in revenue associated with
the EWM, compared to only 16% of indirect businesses.
It is possible that indirect businesses may not have realized the full impact
of the EWM infestation.
21
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE LOCAL ECONOMY (DIRECT & INDIRECT)
In this analysis, it was concluded that over 90% of those who responded feel the health of
the local economy is either important, or very important, to the viability of their business.
Likewise, it was established that 97% of those surveyed perceive the local economy is dependent
on tourism, and further that tourism is dependent on the health of the lake.
These conclusions are based upon answers from general questions that asked those
surveyed to speculate for the entire local economy. To investigate more specifically how
important tourism, and thus the lake, is to the certain sectors of the business community it is
important to examine question #17. This question asked respondents, to “Rate, on a scale from
one to ten, the importance of the tourism industry to the health of your business.”, where
“1” is the highest level of importance, and “10” being the lowest level of importance. The
responses to this question confirm the assumption that many of the indirect businesses feel less
dependent on the tourism industry. It also confirms the assumption that those industries which
we have categorized as direct are dependent on the tourism the lake attracts.
Figure 22
Figure 23
Indirect Response to Question # 17
Direct Response to Question # 17
1
3%
2%
5%
8%
1
4%
5%
7%
18%
2
3%
3
9%
16%
4
81%
5
11%
15%
13%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
As shown above in Figure 23, the indirect industries have a range of perceptions, i.e., mixed
feelings towards their dependence on tourism. This, however, is an anticipated outcome because
of the wide array of businesses that have been grouped together into the indirect category.
Businesses such as restaurants, although indirect, view themselves as dependent on tourism,
while other businesses such as real estate agencies may feel they are less susceptible to
fluctuations in tourism.
22
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
The next question in the survey to be addressed is #25. The question was stated, “Has your
business benefited from the aquatic plant conditions in 2003?” The reply of the respondents
in the direct group was positive with over 50% reporting that their business had improved in the
year following the treatment (Figure 24).
More surprisingly, however, is the reply of the respondents in the indirect group. It was
anticipated that the indirect response would be far less positive, or at least unrealized; however,
40% of the indirect respondents recorded beneficial earnings as a result of the more positive plant
conditions in 2003 (Figure 25).
Figure 24
Figure 25
Direct Response to Question # 25
Indirect Response to Question # 25
yes
34%
53%
no
41%
40%
no
not sure
not sure
13%
yes
19%
The conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of Question #25 has strong
implications for the future. The fact that nearly 45% of all businesses have experienced a
perceived benefit from the removal of the EWM is an important statistic. Considering that
corrective action was taken so soon after the EWM became a problem, and since only 28% of
business owners stated their “revenue went down” as a result of the EWM infestation, it is
interesting to observe 45% reported a financial benefit after the treatment. From this analysis it
could be argued that more business owners than responded actually experienced losses as a result
of the EWM infestation. As Mike Ryan stated in his interview referring to indirect businesses:
“you may not have anything to do with the lake, but you have everything to do with the people
that come to the lake.” 27 It is this fact that helps build a bridge between those businesses that
have been categorized as direct and those that have been categorized as indirect, and blurs the
line that was created to distinguish the two.
27
Ryan, Mike. Personal Interview. 9/23/03
23
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
The final question we will be discussing is #26 on the survey and it reads, “Do you feel
that the economic health of your business is directly related to the water quality of the
lake”? The response suggests a large portion of businesses do consider themselves to be
ultimately connected to the water quality of the lake. In total, only 20% of the businesses that
responded feel that they are not connected to the lake. Conversely, over 70% said that they
consider themselves ultimately connected to the lake and its health. Consistently, a higher
proportion of direct businesses than indirect businesses (89% vs. 56%) perceive business to be
directly related to water quality of the lake (Figures 26 & 27). After reviewing the arguments
made above, these numbers are not surprising. From the beginning of this investigation, it has
been hypothesized that “the lake is the economic engine that drives the whole community”. And,
although arguments made in the first section of analysis concluded this fact, it is even more
convincing to see that more than 55% of those business owners that have been categorized as
indirect feel as though they are as connected to the lake as a marina or lakeside motel (Figure 27).
Figure 26
Figure 27
Direct Resonse to Question # 26
11%
Indirect Response to Qestion # 26
0%
14%
yes
yes
no
not sure
no
30%
56%
not sure
89%
Important observations drawn from this section:
•
•
•
Over 80% of direct businesses feel they are dependent on the local tourism
industry.
Nearly 45% of all businesses have recorded some benefit from the improved
plant conditions in 2002.
Over 50% of the indirect business respondents view a strong connection
between their business and the water quality of the lake.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT BREAKDOWN
The above section focused on the difference between those industries categorized as
direct and indirect. In doing so, some critical differences and commonalities between the two
groups were identified. Those businesses that were categorized as direct had an undeniably strong
connection with the lake and the tourism it attracts. In all of the examined questions the direct
group recorded a significantly stronger tie to the local tourism industry. However, the indirect
category also showed a strong connection to the lake, the quality of its water, and the tourists it
attracts. In total, this exercise demonstrates that local business owners realize the importance of
the local tourism industry to the viability of their businesses. Most importantly, however, this
exercise allows us to make assumptions for the future. Although only 16 percent (Figure 22) of
the indirect businesses recorded lower earnings during the EWM infestation, nearly 60 percent
(Figure 27) of these direct businesses claim that the health of their business is strongly linked to
the condition of the lake. For this reason it can be assumed that if high levels of EWM persisted,
or increased, the economic hardships that impacted almost 50% of the direct businesses would
24
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
have soon extended into those indirect businesses, and losses to indirect businesses would have
increased far beyond the levels they experienced.
VALUES AT RISK
The objective of this report has been to examine connections between the tourism
industry, the lake, and the local economy. Through careful research and examination of the
survey responses, it has been confirmed that much of the local economy is, in fact, dependent on
tourism. In establishing these connections, a platform has been created from which to forecast
repercussions that might have occurred throughout the local economy, if a lake restoration project
were not completed in a successful and timely manner.
“Invasive aquatic plants affect aesthetics, drainage for agriculture and forestry,
commercial land, sport fishing, drinking water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, flood control,
habitats of other plants, human and animal health, hydropower generation, irrigation, navigation,
recreational boating, swimming, water conservation and transport, and ultimately land values.”28
Many of these losses are difficult to quantify. However, because Houghton Lake is
interconnected with the local economy, certain assumptions are reasonable to make regarding
what values are at risk.
The following section will examine a few of the quantifiable losses that could be realized
in the event of a prolonged weed infestation in Houghton Lake. The discussion to follow is based
upon information from the 2003 Roscommon County Equalization Department Report, and
reflects the values from all four townships surrounding Houghton Lake.
28
Rockwell, William H. Jr. Ph.D. Summary of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds. Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. (10/1/03) <www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics.htm>
25
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
Through careful analysis of the survey conducted, it can be determined that a majority of
the local economy is directly connected to the water quality. It is therefore logical to conclude
that the values of commercial property would significantly drop if there were a major problem
with the lake, such as limiting use to a large portion of the lake due to an infestation of EWM. If,
for example, the EWM problem that faced the Houghton Lake area in 99/00 was never addressed,
tourism to the area would have significantly declined. As a result of the reduction in tourism,
commercial property values would be expected to decline. Even a small percentage drop in the
area’s commercial property values would result in millions of lost dollars. A conservative 10%
reduction in the $167 million dollar commercial property market would equate to a total loss of
over $16 million (Figure 28), while a liberal estimate of 50% reduction would translate into a loss
of over $80 million between the four townships.29 When considering these consequences, it is
clear why corrective action was taken to prevent this level of economic disruption from
occurring.
Figure 28
2002 Comercial Land Values (true cash value)
$
Township
Denton
$ 67,449,955.00
Lake
Markey
Roscommon
Total
$
$
$
$
15,154,260.00
15,543,743.00
69,626,571.00
167,774,529.00
% loss
10
10
10
10
10
$ loss
$6,744,995.50
$1,515,426.00
$1,554,374.30
$6,962,657.10
$16,77,452.90
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
Although the value of residential property in the Houghton Lake area may not be affected
as rapidly as some commercial properties in the case of an EWM infestation, prices of residential
lots – particularly waterfront lots - would be expected to decline soon after the aquatic weed
became a problem for lake access, or an aesthetic problem. A detailed study of the impact of
aquatic plant infestations on residential property values was conducted at Lake Guntersville, AL
as part of the Joint Agency Project between the Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley
Authority. Lake Guntersville residential properties experienced a 17% reduction in values due to
the impact of a severe hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) infestation in the 1980’s.
Examination of residential property values for the Houghton Lake townships (Figure 30)
show a 2002 value of $ 1.2 billion. If the impact of EWM caused property values to be reduced
by 10%, this would represent a loss of $120 million. Consider this effect on an individual
waterfront home at Houghton. A waterfront home valued at $175,000 would lose $17,500 in
value. In fact, in the case of waterfront property, it is reasonable to expect a percentage drop
greater than the proposed 10%, creating a loss on any amenity “premium” associated with
waterfront property.30 For this reason, much of the treatment cost of the lake was put on the
29
Roscommon County Equalization Department. Roscommon County Equalization Report. Roscommon, Michigan,
2003.
26
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
shoulders of those who owned property on the lake. In light of the potential losses that lakefront
property owners faced, the cost of the special assessment appears to be a reasonable price to pay.
Considering potential overall effect on residential property values and taxes by applying
the same 17% value reduction found at Lake Guntersville is illustrated in Figure 30. At
Guntersville, a hedonic economic valuation model was used to relate residential values to overall
market conditions, neighborhood effects, and property-specific characteristics, including aquatic
plant levels. For developed and undeveloped waterfront lots, the presence of aquatic plants from
shore to open water had a significant effect on the selling price. Complete control of aquatic
plants increased property values by 17% for developed lots, and 35% for undeveloped properties.
As an illustration of the effect of such impacts on residential property values, the 2002 property
values for the four townships around Houghton Lake were adjusted using a 17% reduction in
property values. Using this reduction in property value percentage from the Guntersville model,
there is a total reduction in property value of $202 million. The residential housing market and
other conditions in Michigan are obviously different from Lake Guntersville, so these results are
intended only to show the potential magnitude of changes.
Figure 29
2002 Residential Property Values
Township
Denton
Lake
Markey
Roscommon
Total
2002 Property Values
$
476,837,289
$
254,259,617
$
234,377,082
$
223,477,001
$
1,188,950,989
$
$
$
$
$
Value of
17% Reducation
81,062,339
43,224,135
39,844,104
37,991,090
202,121,668
$
$
$
$
$
Adjusted Values
395,774,950
211,035,482
194,532,978
185,485,911
986,829,321
27
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
In reference to resort and lakefront properties, developers, real estate agents, and
homeowners often talk about “shoreline frontage values”, the value of a foot of waterfront
property, and loss or changes in the front foot rates. Figure 30 uses information gathered from
phone interviews with the tax assessors from each of the four respective townships around the
lake.30 The data assumes an 18 mile shoreline for each of the four townships, which creates some
discrepancy; however, the magnitude of potential losses the table outlines is revealing.
According to the 2003 front foot rates (price per/ft of waterfront property), a 10% decrease in
lakeshore property alone could equate to a loss of over $100 million. With a total shoreline value
over one billion dollars, a 10% decrease in lakeshore property alone could equate to a loss of over
$100 million (according to the 2003 front foot rates – price per/foot of waterfront property at
Houghton Lake.)
Figure 30
2003 Front Foot Rates (true cash value)
Township
$/ft
Denton
$
2,895.00
Lake
$
3,500.00
Markey
$
2,800.00
Roscommon
$
1,850.00
Average
$
Total Value (75mi) $
2,761.25
1,049,716,800.00
%loss
10
10
10
10
10
$
$
$
$
$loss
27,514,080.00
33,264,000.00
26,611,200.00
17,582,400.00
$104,971,680.00
PUBLIC GOOD
As we have mentioned, economic impacts associated with an aquatic plant invasion are
not easy to quantify. An invasive aquatic species can affect a lake community in a variety of
different ways causing losses in a multitude of economic outcomes. However, many of these
losses are difficult to fully quantify due to the “public-good” nature of the water body. For this
reason researchers have found other methods with which to estimate economic losses. One of the
more common approaches is a benefit/cost analysis. This method is frequently used to evaluate
the “benefit” a community will receive compared to the cost of treatment. Although this
approach does not attempt to estimate actual losses associated with an invasion of aquatic plants,
it allows economists to speculate how much stands to be gained from the management of aquatic
plants. By estimating total “benefit” we can understand potential, unrealized gain, which for our
purposes can be otherwise viewed as a potential loss.31
Identifying and quantifying the benefits to direct and indirect industries, and to the
community as a whole is a difficult task. Typically, flood loss reduction and increases in
agricultural production can be readily quantified. Recreation, aesthetics, and preservation values
are more difficult to quantify since they are non-market commodities. In an effort to get a general
30
Gandolfi, Robert. Phone interview. 10/7/03, Kortage, Joanne. Phone interview. 10/7/03., Williams, Gary D. Phone
interview. 10/7/03., Van Y-Grundas, Amy. Phone interview. 10/14/03.
31
Rockwell, William H. Jr. Ph.D. Summary of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds. Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. (10/1/03) <www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics.htm>
28
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
idea of potential benefits, Rockwell reviewed the limited data available and found that benefit to
cost ratios for lake restoration projects range widely, from 5:1 to a 15:1 benefit to cost ratio.32 In
the case of Houghton Lake, which has budgeted $5 million for their project, this means they have
the potential to gain $25- $75 million in total benefit from their aquatic plant management plan.
TOTAL LOSS
The research in the previous sections brings into light the values at stake for Houghton
Lake property owners when they were considering lake restoration options. Assuming that
Houghton Lake was never treated to remove the EWM, and as a result commercial and residential
property values dropped 10%, the vicinity of Houghton Lake would have collectively lost over
$135 million. This number becomes even more substantial when we include the $25 million of
unrealized gains from the benefit/cost analysis, bringing the total loss to the area to $160 million.
CONCLUSION
Eurasian Watermilfoil, an exotic invasive aquatic plant, was first discovered in 1994 and
allowed to grow unmanaged until it eventually dominated over 50% of the lake’s native plant
community. The EWM infestation developed into a major nuisance by 2001, negatively
impacting the water quality and shoreline conditions of the lake. As a result of the EWM
infestation, there were negative impacts throughout the tourism industry and the local economy of
Houghton Lake.
To address the EWM problem, corrective action was taken in spring/summer 2002 by the
Houghton Lake Improvement Board to successfully remove EWM from the lake. The corrective
action was in the form of treatment with Sonar aquatic herbicide by SePRO Corporation. An
economic impact and property owner survey was conducted in October 2003. The results from
this survey reported that a large majority (96%) of those responding are satisfied with the
treatment of the lake, and that a majority, facing a similar situation in the future, would take
similar corrective action.
The survey also found some concerns regarding the corrective action taken and the future
of the lake. Specifically, respondents voiced a fear that long-term management of the lake would
not continue and that the economic losses would be repeated. In addition, the survey found that
most respondents believe they have received a reasonable return on their investment into the
Special Assessment, levied to pay for the corrective measures, and that the amount charged per
unit was an affordable price to pay for the results received.
Although there were substantive differences between direct and indirect industries
regarding perceived connection of the business to the lake, both business categories experienced
significant negative economic impact from the EWM infestation, and both received positive
impacts from the improved plant conditions in 2002.
While the conceivable economic impacts extend far beyond the three facets documented,
the survey established quantifiable values-at-risk including: values of public-good, commercial
property values, and residential property values.
It is recommended that a more thorough economic impact study be conducted at a later
date when changes may be more accurately measured across a longer time scale.
32
Rockwell, William H. Jr. Ph.D. Summary of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic Weeds. Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. (10/1/03) <www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics.htm> (p.8)
29
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
30
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
APPENDIX A
HOUGHTON LAKE ECONOMIC IMPACT SURVEY
Your name:
Business name:
E-mail:
Please answer the following questions to the best of
your ability. Circle the answer that most closely
represents your view, and feel free to add comments
where you see fit.
Friends of Houghton Lake:
The Houghton Lake Improvement Board and SePRO Corporation would like your input regarding
the 2002 Eurasian watermilfoil treatment of Houghton Lake. In an effort to gauge your opinion,
this short survey has been produced, seeking your participation. The survey is intended to gather
information for the purpose of evaluating the economic impact on Houghton Lake businesses
before, during, and after the Eurasian watermilfoil removal from the lake.
All information you disclose within this survey will be dealt with in strict confidence. Your
individual answers or opinions will not be reproduced or shared and is intended only for this
ongoing economic impact study. Published documents will represent only the collective
summaries of all the participants. Any further information you would like to volunteer regarding
your business—or your comments regarding the treatment of Houghton Lake are welcomed and
encouraged.
Please take a moment to fill out this survey and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope
that has been supplied. Answer the questions completely. Do not skip any questions. Please
take enough time to consider each question carefully.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
1. Please rate your satisfaction with the the treatment
of Eurasian watermilfoil in Houghton Lake.
A. Very satisfied
B. Satisfied
C. Dissatisfied
D. Very dissatisfied
2. In your opinion, what was the impact of the Eurasian
watermilfoil on the economy?
A. Highly positive
B. Positive
C. Negative
D. Very negative
3. What effect did the presence of Eurasian watermilfoil
have on your business?
A. Positive
31
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
B. Negative
C. Not sure
4. Did your business experience a change in revenue
as a direct or indirect result of the Eurasian
watermilfoil?
A. Revenue went down
B. Revenue went up
C. Revenue stayed the same
D. Not sure
5. Did you incur any direct loss or hardship as a result
of the Eurasian watermilfoil? (i.e. burnt boat motor)
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
If yes, please specify
6. Do you feel that the local economy is dependent on
tourism?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
7. In your opinion, is the Special Assessment fee you
pay annually a reasonable price to pay for the
maintenance of Houghton Lake?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
8. How important is the local economy to the health of
your business?
A. Very important
B. Important
C. Not important
9. As a whole, was the attitude of the Houghton Lake
community affected by the Eurasian watermilfoil.
A. Yes...people were becoming discouraged with the
milfoil problem.
B. No...the milfoil did not affect the community's
attitude.
C. Not sure
9a. If yes, did the 2002 treatment of the lake breathe new
life into the Houghton Lake community?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
10. Imagine it is the year 2006, and the Eurasian
watermilfoil has rendered nearly 50% of the lake
un-usable. Would you like the lake to be treated with
Sonar*, as was done in 2002, or would you find an
alternative method of treatment?
32
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
A. Yes...Sonar worked great and I would do it again.
B. No...Sonar failed to do what it promised to do and
I would not do it again.
C. Not sure
11. How important do you feel it is to have native
vegetation in Houghton Lake?
A. Very important
B. Important
C. Not important
12. Did you notice a decline in tourism between the
years of 1999 - 2001 while the watermilfoil began to
infest the lake?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
12a. If yes, did you notice a resurgence in tourism
in 2002 - 2003?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
13. During the infestation did you notice if visitors were
unhappy with the lake's condition?
A. Yes...visitors were discouraged.
B. No...visitors were not affected by the milfoil.
C. Not sure
14. As in many resort communities there are people
and families that return on an annual basis. Did you
notice if any of these so-called "regulars" stopped
visiting the lake when it was choked off by the
watermilfoil?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
15. Have you witnessed a return of these "regulars" as
a result of the Sonar treatment?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
16. Have any visitors expressed concern regarding the
herbicide treatment of the lake?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
17. Rate the importance of the tourism industry to the
health of your business?
Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High
not important very important
33
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
18. Do you feel that the water quality of the lake directly
affects local tourism?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
19. Do you have any concerns regarding the 2002
treatment of the lake with Sonar?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
If yes, please specify
20. Do you have any concerns about the future
management of the Eurasian watermilfoil in
Houghton Lake?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
If yes, please specify
21. Have you witnessed any adverse effects of the
2002 Sonar treatment?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
If yes, please specify
22. If you were talking to a business owner on a
different lake that was suffering the same fate as
Houghton Lake in 2000 would you...
A. Encourage a Sonar treatment based upon the
success in Houghton Lake.
B. Discourage a Sonar treatment because of any
adverse effects it has had on the lake.
C. Not sure
23. Rate the return on your investment of the Special
Assessment fee for the cleanup of Houghton Lake.
Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High
waste of money great return on investment
24. Do you feel that the local economy has benefited as
a result of SePRO's Sonar treatment?
A. Greatly
B. Moderately
C. Somewhat
D. Not at all
25. Has your business benefited from the aquatic plant
conditions in 2003?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
34
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
26. Do you feel that the economic health of your
business is directly linked to the water quality of
the lake?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure
27. Using 1999 as your bar, please rate your business's
revenue change for the following years.
(Circle one for each year)
2000:
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% +10% +20% +30% +40% +50%
2001:
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% +10% +20% +30% +40% +50%
2002:
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% +10% +20% +30% +40% +50%
2003:
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% +10% +20% +30% +40% +50%
Upon completion of this survey, please use the enclosed stamped, self-addressed
envelope provided and return.
Thank you for your participation.
35
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS FROM QUESTIONS
COMMENTS FROM QUESTION 5
Q. Did you incur any direct loss as a result of the Eurasian watermilfoil?
-2 burnt pontoon motors
-Burnt up 3 motors
-My business is commercial rentals - My rentals are: a lending bank, health care, and gift shop.
Funds were cut in health care, so I lost business from that. I don't live on the lake or use the lake
myself, however, we need to take care of our natural resources
-Lower tourist satisfaction.
-No--but customers had problems we addressed
-customers motors
-boat rental revenue down
-Extra man power to clean beaches and dispose of milfoil, very costly
-lower boat rental revenue
-could not fish in late summer---sold jet skis - could not run them due to EWM
-burnt motor
-Family got stranded on a waverunner.
-financially I was charged for 8 rental units I own (commercial). That's a lot!! I couldn't charge
my -tenants for this special assessment
-70 HP Evinrude in need of repair.
-Expense $600 per year for 5 years. All business should have share in eradication.
-Rented a pontoon, got loaded with milfoil around prop, overheated, had to replace head gasket
-we depend on boaters, fishermen, and they were expressing concern about being able to continue
using the lake
-hardship-- It took days to clean from beach
-We have two openings, so we would get everyone’s seaweed.
-other than weed stench on my shoreline
-Had to keep landfill/composter open more for weed removal
- 1.motor 2. stuck in weeds in watercraft
36
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
-boat motor burnt up by rentals
-the hardship of removing the stuff from my beach
-information in newspapers downstate--had some cancellations
-money spent to have waterfront cleaned
-burnt boat motor on a rental
COMMENTS FROM QUESTION 19
Q. Do you have any concerns regarding the 2002 treatment of the lake with Sonar?
-Long term effect?
-It’s a chemical.
-Anytime chemicals are used anywhere, they have a chance to show up or affect humans in some
way
-Of course…its not 100% natural. Not a major concern.
-have heard from other residents that we shouldn't eat the fish
-Will this help the zebra mussels?
-long term effects on fish population
-that it does not become an annual event
-long term effects
-How the flight duck will return in the next 5 to 10 years.
-fish kill
-I would like to be able to swim and eat the fish
-Felt that the DNR worked against the project
-"Chemicals in lake" has bad connotation, but late in the game it was the only choice
-What happens if they find out that DNR had planted the weed to begin with?
-return of the natural plants and fishing
-native vegetation, declined fishing
-possible changes in the lake we are not aware of
-I think that native vegetation was effected but is now returning
-I would like to see something else used that would kill off all vegetation
-health of wildlife
-noticed more dead fish in the spring 200-300 per day during April.
-It appears that Sonar has killed too much native vegetation
-long term affect in water systems
-long term affect on native habitat-plants/fish/animals. will there be any effect?
37
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
COMMENTS FROM QUESTION 20
Q. Do you have any concerns about the future management of the Eurasian watermilfoil in
Houghton Lake?
-Long term effect?
-Hope to see continued effects.
-This lake needs to be watched. Thank you! "A big job well done"
-Must be monitored on a regular basis.
-It needs to be continued.
-I would like to see other ways to control milfoil now that the worst is gone
-Shouldn't wait as long to take action!!
-We need to address it on a long term basis
-how long milfoil will stay gone?
-to maintain a plan for the future
-just hope there is future management & all the good weeds return
-cost factor and the way its assigned
-keep milfoil levels down without ill effect to the lake
-needs to be monitored
-That this committee doesn't come up with excuses to perpetuate an expensive special
assessment.
-How?
-I would prefer maintenance through biological controls, however, if it is not successful and the
lake became infested again I would support chemical treatment
-Chemicals
-Will it continue in the future?
-how much treatment, how often + $$$$
-Worried that this will be a continuing problem; state and local government and certainly every
business should share the cost to keep the lake clean and enjoyable
-That it won't be treated and the Eurasian watermilfoil will reappear.
-I don't want it to get out of control again. Weed need to keep on top if it.
-Wonder how the lake will freeze this winter?
-We must not let it get out of hand again.
-fish kill
-maintain the milfoil on a regular basis
-the concern is with the ability to raise money to pay for future treatment
-use the beetles as a check to keep it under control
-that they won't continue the program in the future
38
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
-continue monitoring
-we have to keep it out of the lake
-unsure of previous treatment, long term effect
-Nature has a way of refurbishing itself
-must be maintained
-does it kill off native vegetation?
-how long will it last? how much will it cost?
-What will keep the lake free from milfoil?
-How bad will it get before re-treatment? Will there be regular inspections?
-want a close check on the lake
-I feel we have very good knowledgeable people monitoring it
-delay in treating the lake in the event of a resurgence of watermilfoil
-Want to see necessary means taken to insure foil never comes back
-normal routine monitoring & treatment to keep things in check
-I would like to see it treated without chemicals
-1.Costs tons 2.health of lake 3.future return on milfoil
COMMENTS FROM QUESTION 21
Q. Have you witnessed any adverse effects of the 2002 Sonar treatment?
-too early
-I have heard numerous stories of over fishing the lake, now that is easier to catch fish. I know
the Sonar treatment had to be done, but fishing needs to be controlled better now!
-Some natural (native) vegetation was effected, but it is coming back.
-eradicated native plants which made it look ugly for a while
-Not at this time...I'll let you know next year.
-The lake was not pretty for awhile.
-Now there are too many Pike I the lake instead of having a variety like perch, walleye, bass, etc.
...oxygen depleting to pan fish early in the year…time ill tell the truth
-Temporary loss of all weeds, but they seem to be coming back.
-I think native vegetation was effected but now has a chance to return to normal.
-More weeds in our area since the treatment
-there is an enormous population of zebra mussels-unsure of any correlation.
-fish kill on small species more than normal
-too much other vegetation killed and therefore affecting baitfish, etc.
39
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
40
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
APPENDIX C
SURVEY RESULTS
OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS
Q1
A
B
C
D
74
36
3
2
115
64.35%
31.30%
2.61%
1.74%
very satisfied
satisfied
dissatisfied
very dissatisfied
64.35%
31.30%
2.61%
1.74%
Q2
A
B
C
D
20
27
30
35
112
17.86%
24.11%
26.79%
31.25%
highly positive
positive
negative
very negative
17.86%
24.11%
26.79%
31.25%
Q3
A
B
C
15
51
42
108
13.89%
47.22%
38.89%
positive
negative
not sure
13.89%
47.22%
38.89%
Q4
A
B
C
D
31
12
38
29
110
28.18%
10.91%
34.55%
26.36%
revenue went down
revenue went up
revenue stayed the same
not sure
28.18%
10.91%
34.55%
26.36%
Q5
A
B
C
28
76
12
116
24.14%
65.52%
10.34%
yes
no
not sure
24.14%
65.52%
10.34%
Q6
A
B
C
114
1
2
117
97.44%
0.85%
1.71%
yes
no
not sure
97.44%
0.85%
1.71%
Q7
A
B
C
76
19
21
116
65.52%
16.38%
18.10%
yes
no
not sure
65.52%
16.38%
18.10%
Q8
A
B
75
27
66.37%
23.89%
very important
important
66.37%
23.89%
41
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
C
11
113
9.73%
A
107
92.24%
B
2
1.72%
C
7
116
6.03%
Q9a
A
B
C
87
6
18
111
Q10
A
not important
9.73%
yes…people were
becoming discouraged with
the milfoil problem
no…the milfoil di not affect
the communities attitude
not sure
92.24%
78.38%
5.41%
16.22%
yes
no
not sure
78.38%
5.41%
16.22%
80
69.57%
69.57%
B
8
6.96%
C
27
115
23.48%
yes…Sonar worked great
and I would do it again
no…Sonar failed to do
what it promised and I
would not do it again
not sure
23.48%
Q11
A
B
C
73
34
8
115
63.48%
29.57%
6.96%
very important
important
not important
63.48%
29.57%
6.96%
Q12
A
B
C
65
20
30
115
56.52%
17.39%
26.09%
yes
no
not sure
56.52%
17.39%
26.09%
Q12a
A
B
C
37
25
22
84
44.05%
29.76%
26.19%
yes
no
not sure
44.05%
29.76%
26.19%
Q13
A
103
88.03%
88.03%
B
9
7.69%
C
5
117
4.27%
yes…visitors were
discouraged
no…visitors were not
affected by the milfoil
not sure
A
B
C
51
24
42
117
43.59%
20.51%
35.90%
yes
no
not sure
43.59%
20.51%
35.90%
Q9
Q14
1.72%
6.03%
6.96%
7.69%
4.27%
42
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Q15
A
B
C
33
18
54
105
31.43%
17.14%
51.43%
yes
no
not sure
31.43%
17.14%
51.43%
Q16
A
B
C
50
52
15
117
42.74%
44.44%
12.82%
yes
no
not sure
42.74%
44.44%
12.82%
Q18
A
B
C
111
3
3
117
94.87%
2.56%
2.56%
yes
no
not sure
94.87%
2.56%
2.56%
Q19
A
B
C
25
72
19
116
21.55%
62.07%
16.38%
yes
no
not sure
21.55%
62.07%
16.38%
Q20
A
B
C
56
40
18
114
49.12%
35.09%
15.79%
yes
no
not sure
49.12%
35.09%
15.79%
Q21
A
B
C
11
84
21
116
9.48%
72.41%
18.10%
yes
no
not sure
9.48%
72.41%
18.10%
Q22
A
97
83.62%
83.62%
B
2
1.72%
C
17
116
14.66%
Encourage a Sonar
treatment based upon the
success on Houghton Lake
Discourage a Sonar
treatment because of any
adverse effects it has had
on the lake.
not sure
14.66%
Q24
A
B
C
D
49
41
18
8
116
42.24%
35.34%
15.52%
6.90%
greatly
moderately
somewhat
not at all
42.24%
35.34%
15.52%
6.90%
Q25
A
B
C
45
19
45
109
41.28%
17.43%
41.28%
yes
no
not sure
41.28%
17.43%
41.28%
1.72%
43
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Q26
A
B
C
72
26
12
110
65.45%
23.64%
10.91%
Q23
>5
<5
38
74
112
34%
66%
yes
no
not sure
65.45%
23.64%
10.91%
Five or below
Six or above
33.93%
66.07%
44
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
DIRECT SURVEY RESULTS
Q1
A
B
C
D
29
10
1
0
40
72.50%
25.00%
2.50%
0.00%
very satisfied
satisfied
dissatisfied
very dissatisfied
72.50%
25.00%
2.50%
0.00%
Q2
A
B
C
D
7
6
10
16
39
17.95%
15.38%
25.64%
41.03%
highly positive
positive
negative
very negative
17.95%
15.38%
25.64%
41.03%
Q3
A
B
C
7
26
4
37
18.92%
70.27%
10.81%
positive
negative
not sure
18.92%
70.27%
10.81%
Q4
A
B
C
D
18
3
10
7
38
47.37%
7.89%
26.32%
18.42%
revenue went down
revenue went up
revenue stayed the same
not sure
47.37%
7.89%
26.32%
18.42%
Q5
A
B
C
19
17
4
40
47.50%
42.50%
10.00%
yes
no
not sure
47.50%
42.50%
10.00%
Q6
A
B
C
40
0
0
40
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
yes
no
not sure
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Q7
A
B
C
25
6
9
40
62.50%
15.00%
22.50%
yes
no
not sure
62.50%
15.00%
22.50%
Q8
A
B
C
27
9
3
39
69.23%
23.08%
7.69%
very important
important
not important
69.23%
23.08%
7.69%
Q9
A
38
97.44%
97.44%
B
0
0.00%
yes…people were
becoming discouraged with
the milfoil problem
no…the milfoil di not affect
0.00%
45
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
the communities attitude
not sure
C
1
39
2.56%
2.56%
Q9a
A
B
C
29
1
9
39
74.36%
2.56%
23.08%
yes
no
not sure
74.36%
2.56%
23.08%
Q10
A
29
74.36%
74.36%
B
1
2.56%
C
9
39
23.08%
yes…Sonar worked great
and I would do it again
no…Sonar failed to do
what it promised and I
would not do it again
not sure
23.08%
Q11
A
B
C
26
10
3
39
66.67%
25.64%
7.69%
very important
important
not important
66.67%
25.64%
7.69%
Q12
A
B
C
25
6
9
40
62.50%
15.00%
22.50%
yes
no
not sure
62.50%
15.00%
22.50%
Q12a
A
B
C
11
11
6
28
39.29%
39.29%
21.43%
yes
no
not sure
39.29%
39.29%
21.43%
Q13
A
38
95.00%
95.00%
B
2
5.00%
C
0
40
0.00%
yes…visitors were
discouraged
no…visitors were not
affected by the milfoil
not sure
Q14
A
B
C
23
7
10
40
57.50%
17.50%
25.00%
yes
no
not sure
57.50%
17.50%
25.00%
Q15
A
B
C
14
6
16
36
38.89%
16.67%
44.44%
yes
no
not sure
38.89%
16.67%
44.44%
Q16
A
B
15
22
37.50%
55.00%
yes
no
37.50%
55.00%
2.56%
5.00%
0.00%
46
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
C
3
40
7.50%
not sure
7.50%
Q18
A
B
C
40
0
0
40
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
yes
no
not sure
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Q19
A
B
C
7
25
8
40
17.50%
62.50%
20.00%
yes
no
not sure
17.50%
62.50%
20.00%
Q20
A
B
C
20
16
3
39
51.28%
41.03%
7.69%
yes
no
not sure
51.28%
41.03%
7.69%
Q21
A
B
C
5
29
6
40
12.50%
72.50%
15.00%
yes
no
not sure
12.50%
72.50%
15.00%
Q22
A
34
85.00%
85.00%
B
1
2.50%
C
5
40
12.50%
Encourage a Sonar
treatment based upon the
success on Houghton Lake
Discourage a Sonar
treatment because of any
adverse effects it has had
on the lake.
not sure
12.50%
Q24
A
B
C
D
18
13
8
1
40
45.00%
32.50%
20.00%
2.50%
greatly
moderately
somewhat
not at all
45.00%
32.50%
20.00%
2.50%
Q25
A
B
C
20
5
13
38
52.63%
13.16%
34.21%
yes
no
not sure
52.63%
13.16%
34.21%
Q26
A
B
C
33
4
0
37
89.19%
10.81%
0.00%
yes
no
not sure
89.19%
10.81%
0.00%
2.50%
47
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
INDIRECT SURVEY RESULTS
Q1
A
B
C
D
39
23
1
1
64
60.94%
35.94%
1.56%
1.56%
very satisfied
satisfied
dissatisfied
very dissatisfied
60.94%
35.94%
1.56%
1.56%
Q2
A
B
C
D
12
19
17
16
64
18.75%
29.69%
26.56%
25.00%
highly positive
positive
negative
very negative
18.75%
29.69%
26.56%
25.00%
Q3
A
B
C
9
22
35
66
13.64%
33.33%
53.03%
positive
negative
not sure
13.64%
33.33%
53.03%
Q4
A
B
C
D
10
9
24
20
63
15.87%
14.29%
38.10%
31.75%
revenue went down
revenue went up
revenue stayed the same
not sure
15.87%
14.29%
38.10%
31.75%
Q5
A
B
C
8
52
6
66
12.12%
78.79%
9.09%
yes
no
not sure
12.12%
78.79%
9.09%
Q6
A
B
C
63
1
2
66
95.45%
1.52%
3.03%
yes
no
not sure
95.45%
1.52%
3.03%
Q7
A
B
C
44
11
10
65
67.69%
16.92%
15.38%
yes
no
not sure
67.69%
16.92%
15.38%
Q8
A
B
C
44
15
6
65
67.69%
23.08%
9.23%
very important
important
not important
67.69%
23.08%
9.23%
Q9
A
62
93.94%
93.94%
B
0
0.00%
yes…people were
becoming discouraged with
the milfoil problem
no…the milfoil di not affect
the communities attitude
0.00%
48
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
C
4
66
6.06%
not sure
6.06%
Q9a
A
B
C
50
4
9
63
79.37%
6.35%
14.29%
yes
no
not sure
79.37%
6.35%
14.29%
Q10
A
45
69.23%
69.23%
B
6
9.23%
C
14
65
21.54%
yes…Sonar worked great
and I would do it again
no…Sonar failed to do
what it promised and I
would not do it again
not sure
21.54%
Q11
A
B
C
43
17
5
65
66.15%
26.15%
7.69%
very important
important
not important
66.15%
26.15%
7.69%
Q12
A
B
C
37
12
16
65
56.92%
18.46%
24.62%
yes
no
not sure
56.92%
18.46%
24.62%
Q12a
A
B
C
25
11
14
50
50.00%
22.00%
28.00%
yes
no
not sure
50.00%
22.00%
28.00%
Q13
A
55
83.33%
83.33%
B
6
9.09%
C
5
66
7.58%
yes…visitors were
discouraged
no…visitors were not
affected by the milfoil
not sure
Q14
A
B
C
26
15
25
66
39.39%
22.73%
37.88%
yes
no
not sure
39.39%
22.73%
37.88%
Q15
A
B
C
17
12
30
59
28.81%
20.34%
50.85%
yes
no
not sure
28.81%
20.34%
50.85%
Q16
A
B
C
27
30
9
40.91%
45.45%
13.64%
yes
no
not sure
40.91%
45.45%
13.64%
9.23%
9.09%
7.58%
49
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
66
Q18
A
B
C
60
3
3
66
90.91%
4.55%
4.55%
yes
no
not sure
90.91%
4.55%
4.55%
Q19
A
B
C
14
42
10
66
21.21%
63.64%
15.15%
yes
no
not sure
21.21%
63.64%
15.15%
Q20
A
B
C
35
19
10
64
54.69%
29.69%
15.63%
yes
no
not sure
54.69%
29.69%
15.63%
Q21
A
B
C
6
48
11
65
9.23%
73.85%
16.92%
yes
no
not sure
9.23%
73.85%
16.92%
Q22
A
55
83.33%
83.33%
B
1
1.52%
C
10
66
15.15%
Encourage a Sonar
treatment based upon the
success on Houghton Lake
Discourage a Sonar
treatment because of any
adverse effects it has had
on the lake.
not sure
15.15%
Q24
A
B
C
D
28
24
8
5
65
43.08%
36.92%
12.31%
7.69%
greatly
moderately
somewhat
not at all
43.08%
36.92%
12.31%
7.69%
Q25
A
B
C
26
12
26
64
40.63%
18.75%
40.63%
yes
no
not sure
40.63%
18.75%
40.63%
Q26
A
B
C
36
19
9
64
56.25%
29.69%
14.06%
yes
no
not sure
56.25%
29.69%
14.06%
1.52%
50
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
WORKS SITED
Combating the Economic and Environmental Devastation from Invasive Species.
Western Governors’ Association. 10/1/03 <http://www.invasivespecies.gov>
Costs Asssociated with Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. Cornell University.
10/1/03 <http://www.news.cornell.edu/relaeses/Jan99/species_costs.html>
Economic Impact of IPlants: Invasive Plants and the Nusery Industry. Brown University.
10/1/03 <http://brown.edu/Research/EnvStudies_Theses/full>
ENSR International. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Control of Eurasian
Watermilfoil in Lake George with Fluridone: Revised Draft.. Willington,
CT: 2001.
Faino, Joe and Ron Eno. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
Fortino, Elizabeth. Personal interview. 9/24/03.
Foster, Lyman. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
Gandolfi, Robert. Phone interview. 10/7/03
Henderson, Jim E. and Phil Kirk “ ’So how mush is it worth?’ Economic Impacts of Recreational
Fishing Under Different Aquatic Plan Conditions”. Aquatic Plant Control Research
Program Vol-A02-1 (2002) pp.1-8.
Korbinski, Linda and Ed. Personal interview. 9/24/03.
Kortage, Joanne. Phone interview. 10/7/03.
Marcouiller, David W. “Water Economics: The Dismal Art of Valuing Common-Pool
Resources”. Lakeline. Vol. 23, No. 3 (Fall 2003): 14-17.
51
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Unites States Geological Survey. 10/1/03
<http://nas.er.usgs.gov/plants/docs/my_spica.html>.
Our Perspective. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. 10/1/03
<http:www.aquatics.org/perspective.htm>
Pastula, Dick. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
Pathways of Introduction and the Ecological and Economic Impacts of Invasive Species.
Ortepa Antifoulants. 10/1/03 <http://www.ortepa.org/pages/ei26.htm>
Pimentel, David, Lori Lach, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison. Environmental and Economic
Rankin, Mike. Personal interview. 9/24/03.
ReMetrix LLC. Multiyear Change Analysis for Eurasian Watermilfoil, Including 2002 Satellite
and Field Data. Carmel, IN: 2003.
---. Houghton Lake Management Feasibility Study: Final Report. Carmel, IN: 2002.
Rockwell, William H. Jr. Ph.D. Summary of the Literature on the Economic Impact of Aquatic
Weeds. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. (10/1/03)
<www.aquatics.org/pubs/economics.htm>
Roscommon County Equalization Department. Roscommon County Equalization Report.
Roscommon, Michigan, 2003.
Ryan, Mike. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
Sensor, Sheila. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
SePRO Corporation. 2002 Michigan Permit Application for Houghton Lake.
Carmel, IN: 2002.
Shea, Laura and Bob. Personal interview. 9/25/03.
52
Houghton Lake Economic Impact Survey
Smith, Craig S., Mark Mongin and Mark A. Heilman. “Houghton Lake, MI—Restoring the
Aquatic Vegetation.” LakeLine Vol. 23 No. 3 (Fall 2003): 30-33.
Theriot, Dr. Edwin. The Growing Problem of Invasive Species. Department of the Army.
10/1/03 <http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/108cong/fish/2003apr29/theriot.htm>
Tribelhorn, Brian. Personal interview. 9/23/03.
What’s Up in Houghton Lake?. Houghton Lake Improvement Board. 10/1/03
<http://www.roscommoncounty.net/milfoil%20handout.htm>
Williams, Gary D. Phone interview. 10/7/03.
Van Y-Grundas, Amy. Phone interview. 10/14/03.
53